Kyle Burchett - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Papers by Kyle Burchett

The document mentioned above has been reviewed and accepted by the student's advisor, on behalf o... more The document mentioned above has been reviewed and accepted by the student's advisor, on behalf of the advisory committee, and by the Director of Graduate Studies (DGS), on behalf of the program; we verify that this is the final, approved version of the student's thesis including all changes required by the advisory committee. The undersigned agree to abide by the statements above.

Due to the manifold ecological problems associated with exponentially growing human populations a... more Due to the manifold ecological problems associated with exponentially growing human populations and their collective interactions with Earth’s various ecosystems, many environmentalists have lamented that nature is being destroyed by humanity. The theoretical framework which presumably accounts for our species’ destructiveness is pejoratively referred to as anthropocentrism, the view that humans are the sole bearers of intrinsic value on our planet, whereas all nonhuman aspects of the biosphere, whether biotic or abiotic, are of merely instrumental value to the satisfaction of human interests. I argue, however, that environmental thinkers’ critiques of anthropocentrism are ultimately misplaced. Humanity’s ecological predicament is not the result of overvaluing humanity as such but of permitting institutionalized forms of ethical egoism to underlie policies that narrowly focus on the short-term, frivolous interests of current individuals at the expense of the vital interests of futur...

OF DISSERTATION ANTHROPOCENTRISM AS ENVIRONMENTAL ETHIC Ever since the environment and nonhumanit... more OF DISSERTATION ANTHROPOCENTRISM AS ENVIRONMENTAL ETHIC Ever since the environment and nonhumanity became major ethical topics, humancentered worldviews have been blamed for all that is morally wrong about our dealings with nature. Those who consider themselves nonanthropocentrists typically assume that the West’s anthropocentric axiologies and ontologies underlie all of the environmental degradations associated with our species. On the other hand, a handful of environmental philosophers argue that anthropocentrism is perfectly acceptable as a foundation for environmental ethics. According to Bryan Norton’s convergence hypothesis, “If reasonably interpreted and translated into appropriate policies, a nonanthropocentric ethic will advocate the same [environmental] policies as a suitably broad and long-sighted anthropocentrism” (Norton 2004:11). Norton notes that although adherents to either ism may disagree about the relative importance of the various reasons they have for advocating...

Due to the manifold ecological problems associated with exponentially growing human populations a... more Due to the manifold ecological problems associated with exponentially
growing human populations and their collective interactions with Earth’s
various ecosystems, many environmentalists have lamented that nature is being destroyed by humanity. The theoretical framework which presumably accounts for our species’ destructiveness is pejoratively referred to as anthropocentrism, the view that humans are the sole bearers of intrinsic value on our planet, whereas all nonhuman aspects of the biosphere, whether biotic or abiotic, are of merely instrumental value to the satisfaction of human interests. I argue, however, that environmental thinkers’ critiques of anthropocentrism are ultimately misplaced. Humanity’s ecological predicament is not the result of overvaluing humanity as such but of permitting institutionalized forms of ethical egoism to underlie policies that narrowly focus on the short-term, frivolous interests of current individuals at the expense of the vital
interests of future generations.

arrives on Pandora already disenchanted with the human race. His identical twin Tommy was murdere... more arrives on Pandora already disenchanted with the human race. His identical twin Tommy was murdered by a fellow human being for nothing more than "the paper in his wallet." Now, as he disembarks from the Valkyrie shuttlecraft, he enters a world where the same thing is happening on a grand scale, where human predators are ready to sacrifice the lives of countless living beings in pursuit of monetary gain. This disrespect for life is symptomatic of what the Na'vi see as the calling card of the Sky People, an insanity for which they have concluded there is no cure. The Na'vi's intimate connection to all life on Pandora makes humanity's vicious attitude toward the natural world unfathomable to them. The Na'vi see the intrinsic value of all life. In their eyes, there can be no justification for the wanton destruction of life on Pandora. All of the unobtanium in the world can't buy back the lives destroyed in its acquisition. To disrespect life in others-whether plants, animals, or persons-is ultimately to disrespect oneself. The Sky People act as if they are apart from nature, rather than a part of it. Failing to see the intricate connections among all living things, they have no understanding of the moral significance of their actions-on Pandora or on Earth. The Na'vi, on the other hand, attempt to see through the eye of Eywa and evaluate the moral significance of their actions by whether they uphold the balance of life. 1

Talks by Kyle Burchett

Homo sapiens is leaving its mark on Earth in much the same way that cosmic collisions leave massi... more Homo sapiens is leaving its mark on Earth in much the same way that cosmic collisions leave massive impact craters—fundamentally altering the conditions that enable possible life forms to exist over vast scales of space and time. One of environmental philosophy’s longest standing critiques is that our current ecological predicament is largely due to the overt anthropocentrism which informs the worldviews of consumers in industrialized nations. In this paper, I adopt a lifeboat Earth perspective to highlight the populations—both human and nonhuman—that are the chief beneficiaries of current consumption practices. I argue that, even if anthropocentrism is essentially inescapable (since humans must necessarily experience the world from an undeniably human perspective), populations in industrialized nations can hardly be accused of being overwhelmingly anthropocentric. On the contrary, the staggering amount of resources sequestered away from underprivileged human populations for the benefit of nonhuman companion organisms could almost be taken as conclusive evidence of a pathological misanthropism. This leads to an analysis of environmental justice on lifeboat Earth from ecocentric, biocentric, and anthropocentric frameworks. I conclude, along lines similar to those of Bryan Norton, that the most ecologically defensible worldview must be informed by a rational form of anthropocentrism.

Over the past couple of centuries, Earth’s ecosystems have undergone changes that are unprecedent... more Over the past couple of centuries, Earth’s ecosystems have undergone changes that are unprecedented in the geologic record. The biotic as well as abiotic compositions of virtually all of Earth’s ecosystems have been radically altered due to both direct and indirect human-environment interactions. Prior to the widespread dispersal of Homo sapiens into novel territories, coupled with globalized trade and consumption of our planet’s resources, radical alterations to ecosystems on a global scale were mainly the result of abiotic factors. In this paper, I argue that biological invasions are likewise capable of reshaping our planet’s biosphere and redirecting the evolutionary trajectory of its myriad life forms. With the constant human-facilitated introduction and establishment of invasive species propagules, along with their subsequent spread, ecosystems have begun to transform in scales of time that even humans are capable of noticing, resulting in the homogenization of Earth’s biotic community. Among the most troubling consequences of ecosystem transformation are disruptions to ecosystem services which are due to specific biotic compositions, particularly when pathogens are involved. Whether pathogens are released from a disturbed ecosystem or whether introduced, human health and livelihoods can be greatly affected—especially in the case of underprivileged populations. Coinciding with the anthropogenic invasional meltdown, emerging infectious diseases have begun to appear at an unprecedented rate, threatening the health of humans and nonhumans alike. Since the major driver behind these problems is Homo sapiens’ own invasiveness, any effective management strategies will have to include limiting our species’ largely unregulated interactions with the environment as well as altering the irrational consumption patterns modeled by developed nations.

In the first part of the paper I consider the puzzling extinctions that began to occur around the... more In the first part of the paper I consider the puzzling extinctions that began to occur around the world at the end of the Pleistocene, differentiating these extinctions from others in geologic history. I discuss three widely-debated Pleistocene extinction hypotheses: overkill, climate change, and hypderdisease. Each hypothesis has its merits, although none offers an adequate explanation for late Pleistocene extinctions in toto. A multicausal approach nevertheless favors the conclusion that these extinctions were largely anthropogenic, particularly when Homo sapiens is construed as an invasive species. In the second part of the paper I discuss Earth’s current mass extinctions, looking at causal factors such as Homo sapiens’ invasion of ‘novel’ ecosystems, overconsumption of toxic or limited resources, and deeply-ingrained metaphysical assumptions about reality which negatively influence human-environment interactions and are ultimately life-negating for our species. In particular, I critique assumptions about the inexhaustibility of natural resources and that humans are quasi-divine and thus fundamentally separable from and superior to all other aspects of the natural world. I conclude by discussing the need to alter our consumption practices if we are to preserve multicellular biodiversity conducive to the long-term survival of species like ours. If Homo sapiens is in fact a rational species, as is generally presumed, we must demonstrate this by favoring the long-term survival of the species over the short-term monetary profits and convenience of a relative handful of individuals, particularly those in industrialized nations who disproportionately consume the Earth’s resources and present such consumption as an ideal model for developing nations to follow.

CV by Kyle Burchett

Due to the manifold ecological problems associated with exponentially growing human populations a... more Due to the manifold ecological problems associated with exponentially
growing human populations and their collective interactions with Earth’s
various ecosystems, many environmentalists have lamented that nature is being destroyed by humanity. The theoretical framework which presumably accounts for our species’ destructiveness is pejoratively referred to as anthropocentrism, the view that humans are the sole bearers of intrinsic value on our planet, whereas all nonhuman aspects of the biosphere, whether biotic or abiotic, are of merely instrumental value to the satisfaction of human interests. I argue, however, that environmental thinkers’ critiques of anthropocentrism are ultimately misplaced. Humanity’s ecological predicament is not the result of overvaluing humanity as such but of permitting institutionalized forms of ethical egoism to underlie policies that narrowly focus on the short-term, frivolous interests of current individuals at the expense of the vital
interests of future generations.